Nevada cites U.S. warnings in bid to block plutonium shipments

Seen through thick protective glass, this Nov. 20, 2013, photo shows the area where workers sand-blast the large stainless-steel tanks used in the vitrification process to rid them of contaminates at the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. Nevada’s latest bid to block incoming shipments of weapons-grade plutonium points to the U.S. Energy Department’s own scientific warnings about the dangers of prematurely moving the highly radioactive material out of South Carolina.

Associated Press

In this Nov. 20, 2013, photo, radioactive waste sealed in large stainless-steel canisters is stored under five feet of concrete in a storage building at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. Nevada’s latest bid to block incoming shipments of weapons-grade plutonium points to the U.S. Energy Department’s own scientific warnings about the dangers of prematurely moving the highly radioactive material out of South Carolina.

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

RENO, Nev. — Nevada’s latest bid to block incoming shipments of weapons-grade plutonium points to the U.S. Energy Department’s own scientific warnings about the dangers of prematurely moving the highly radioactive material out of South Carolina.

State lawyers say in briefs filed this week with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Trump administration is engaged in a clandestine “charade” intended to turn Nevada “into the nation’s radioactive dump.”

They want the San Francisco-based court to overturn a Reno judge’s refusal to temporarily halt all plutonium shipments to a site near Las Vegas.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du denied the request Jan. 30, saying any potential harm was speculative. That was the same day the government revealed it secretly shipped a half metric ton (1,102 pounds) of plutonium from South Carolina to Nevada sometime before Nov. 30.

Nevada lawyers said in Monday’s filing that the “stealth” truck shipment increased residents’ radiation exposure equivalent to getting 100 to 200 chest X-rays annually for three years.

State Attorney General Aaron Ford and his deputies cite numerous legal briefs that the U.S. government filed when it argued unsuccessfully in court in 2017 and again in a failed appeal to keep the plutonium at South Carolina’s Savannah River Site because of the risks of moving it elsewhere.

Nevada’s lawyers noted the Energy Department had claimed repeatedly that “it would be impossible to safely transport and store that much plutonium before the year 2025.”

The agency argued at the time that Savannah River was the only place with the “required capacity, security, safety analysis and surveillance program to receive and store any significant amount of plutonium in the form and packaging configuration as it exists today.”

Nevertheless, a judge ordered the government in December 2017 to remove at least a metric ton (2,204 pounds) of plutonium from South Carolina by Jan. 1, 2020.

The Department of Energy appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing removal “within two years is simply impossible if DOE also complies with (the National Environmental Policy Act) and the applicable regulations.”

State attorneys argue that the government failed to adequately examine potential harm to Nevada’s residents, environment and economy. They attached 699 pages of excerpts from the Energy Department’s past filings to a 49-page brief underscoring the contradictions.

The agency released the analysis in August outlining its intention to move the plutonium to Nevada by 2020. Then-Gov. Brian Sandoval called Energy Secretary Rick Perry in early September to express his concerns, and additional correspondence led to an Oct. 30 meeting in Washington before Nevada sued a month later.

“In the middle of the talks, DOE trucked a half ton of weapons grade plutonium to Nevada without warning state officials or emergency responders,” Nevada’s new brief says. “DOE continued the charade through the district court’s preliminary injunction hearing by pretending the shipments had not yet occurred.”

The department declined comment Tuesday. It has until April 1 to reply to Nevada’s opening brief.

The Energy Department previously said the shipment was kept secret for national security reasons but state officials knew it was coming based on the August analysis. It’s also said it doesn’t intend to ship additional plutonium to Nevada from South Carolina.

Nevada’s lawyers say the department can’t be trusted.

“Whenever another state has inconvenient nuclear material lying around, DOE’s apparent solution is to sneak it hurriedly into the Silver State before anyone notices,” they wrote, adding that one state’s “irradiated garbage should not become Nevada’s environmental hazard.”

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.